Midair collision with fatalities in Tucson

[Schllc]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2-small-planes-collide-midair-regional-arizona-airport-leaving-2-dead
 

 

[EricJ]

Local discussions are that the C172 was taking off, perhaps after a stop-and-go, and the Lancair was going around because the C172 wasn't clear.   They collided during climbout.  Word is there was little damage to the C172, apparently the prop contacted the bottom of the Lancair.    The Lancair crashed and was desroyed.

[EricJ]

This is the accident C172.   The tail number is consistent with the Embry-Riddle fleet.   There is minimal apparent damage other than to the tips of the prop.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478774

[Schllc]

Feel horrible for that kid, having that on your conscience is a heavy load.
People do what they want at uncontrolled fields. 
Be it ignorance, defiance, stupidity or just lack of situational awareness 

We have seen how atc can fail lately as well, so I’m not piling on uncontrolled fields, but with the experiences I have had, I am shocked it doesn’t happen more often. 

[IvanP]

Crap, yet another reason for the masses and hysterical media to scream that GA should be banned. 

[Ragsf15e]

22 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Feel horrible for that kid, having that on your conscience is a heavy load.
People do what they want at uncontrolled fields. 
Be it ignorance, defiance, stupidity or just lack of situational awareness 

We have seen how atc can fail lately as well, so I’m not piling on uncontrolled fields, but with the experiences I have had, I am shocked it doesn’t happen more often. 

Sadly I agree with you.  I had an experience last year where an older (and experienced) CFI was taking a student for an introductory flight at a pretty busy uncontrolled field.  I happened to be on final after a 4 hour xc with my whole family onboard.  She called that they were departing and I thought it would work ok, but then they just sat there on the runway.  They started rolling just as I started my go around and offset because we were in great formation.  I was slightly above her and they were in a C172, so with our relative hight vs wing position, neither of us had a good view of the other.  We deconflicted on the radio and went our separate ways, but I was a little mad and (next day) looked up the tail number, called the flight school owner and he apologized and let me talk to the cfi.  She first said, oh yeah, that was fine, don’t worry, I’ve flown a lot of formations.  Well shit, I have too, but they’ve generally been with people I knew and we had briefed everything and we generally didn’t do it that low or slow.  Second thing she said was, well my student just took forever to push up the power.  Well wtf?!  A student on an introductory flight?  That’s the cfi’s responsibility!  But I could tell she could care less.  She told me that we should all be able to go around at any time. Well I agree, but I don’t think forcing yourself in front of me and then telling me it’s not a big deal because you fly formation and I should be good at going around is actually a good idea.  The call ended with me feeling a little like your sentiment above…

[Schllc]

Yeah, it frustrates, annoys and sometimes scares me when I’m alone, but when my family is with me I get pretty mad once I’m on the ground.  It won’t change. The type of people who choose to operate that way frequent uncontrolled fields. 
Not saying everyone there is this way, just that the ones that are, are usually found there. 

[MikeOH]

21 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Sadly I agree with you.  I had an experience last year where an older (and experienced) CFI was taking a student for an introductory flight at a pretty busy uncontrolled field.  I happened to be on final after a 4 hour xc with my whole family onboard.  She called that they were departing and I thought it would work ok, but then they just sat there on the runway.  They started rolling just as I started my go around and offset because we were in great formation.  I was slightly above her and they were in a C172, so with our relative hight vs wing position, neither of us had a good view of the other.  We deconflicted on the radio and went our separate ways, but I was a little mad and (next day) looked up the tail number, called the flight school owner and he apologized and let me talk to the cfi.  She first said, oh yeah, that was fine, don’t worry, I’ve flown a lot of formations.  Well shit, I have too, but they’ve generally been with people I knew and we had briefed everything and we generally didn’t do it that low or slow.  Second thing she said was, well my student just took forever to push up the power.  Well wtf?!  A student on an introductory flight?  That’s the cfi’s responsibility!  But I could tell she could care less.  She told me that we should all be able to go around at any time. Well I agree, but I don’t think forcing yourself in front of me and then telling me it’s not a big deal because you fly formation and I should be good at going around is actually a good idea.  The call ended with me feeling a little like your sentiment above…

YOWZER!!!

Did you call the owner back and relate how his CFI behaved?  Based on his original apology he might be interested in applying a little 'corrective action'.

[EricJ]

47 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Sadly I agree with you.  I had an experience last year where an older (and experienced) CFI was taking a student for an introductory flight at a pretty busy uncontrolled field.  I happened to be on final after a 4 hour xc with my whole family onboard.  She called that they were departing and I thought it would work ok, but then they just sat there on the runway.  They started rolling just as I started my go around and offset because we were in great formation.  I was slightly above her and they were in a C172, so with our relative hight vs wing position, neither of us had a good view of the other.  We deconflicted on the radio and went our separate ways, but I was a little mad and (next day) looked up the tail number, called the flight school owner and he apologized and let me talk to the cfi.  She first said, oh yeah, that was fine, don’t worry, I’ve flown a lot of formations.  Well shit, I have too, but they’ve generally been with people I knew and we had briefed everything and we generally didn’t do it that low or slow.  Second thing she said was, well my student just took forever to push up the power.  Well wtf?!  A student on an introductory flight?  That’s the cfi’s responsibility!  But I could tell she could care less.  She told me that we should all be able to go around at any time. Well I agree, but I don’t think forcing yourself in front of me and then telling me it’s not a big deal because you fly formation and I should be good at going around is actually a good idea.  The call ended with me feeling a little like your sentiment above…

That sound comparable to what appears to have happened here.

One of my questions in the current incident is why the Lancair didn't offset during the go-around.    There is a jumper LZ on the NW corner of the airport, but by mid-field you're  past it using runway 12 if there are jumpers present.   Radios are naturally a go-to tool for deconflicting, so I'm guessing there was a breakdown there.    Sad in any case.   :'(

[Ragsf15e]

4 minutes ago, EricJ said:

That sound comparable to what appears to have happened here.

One of my questions in the current incident is why the Lancair didn't offset during the go-around.    There is a jumper LZ on the NW corner of the airport, but by mid-field you're  past it using runway 12 if there are jumpers present.   Radios are naturally a go-to tool for deconflicting, so I'm guessing there was a breakdown there.    Sad in any case.   :'(

Well maybe we should practice offsetting during go arounds (and we did that all the time in the USAF), but I don’t remember doing that or teaching my students (bad on me!) when I was doing basic instruction…

[DCarlton]

41 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Well maybe we should practice offsetting during go arounds (and we did that all the time in the USAF), but I don’t remember doing that or teaching my students (bad on me!) when I was doing basic 

Offset and climb?  Or offset, climb and turn to downwind ASAP?  

[Ragsf15e]

Just now, DCarlton said:

Offset and climb?  Or offset, climb and turn to downwind ASAP?  

Well it depends.  In the instance I described above, I was offset on the opposite side from downwind, so I couldn’t just turn quickly because I would have cut across her nose.  Generally (and in the usaf we had very specific offset procedures) you should offset on the “downwind” side of the runway, but in my case there were planes in the runup there and I didn’t want to overfly them low so I went on the other side.  As far as climbing immediately, it sounds good, but I’ve flown a lot of formation, and rule 1 was always never to lose sight.  I didn’t have a comfortable position (being slightly above and slow and cleaning up my own airplane), but I could see the other airplane, and until I could work out better deconflition over the radio, I opted to keep her in sight.  If you lose sight, you can no longer maneuver to maintain separation, so you better be sure you’re getting away.

[IvanP]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Well maybe we should practice offsetting during go arounds (and we did that all the time in the USAF), but I don’t remember doing that or teaching my students (bad on me!) when I was doing basic instruction…

My primary instructor pounded into my head to always offset if going around because of conflcting traffic on the runway. I still remember my first solo XC flight when I got to practice this maneuver. Turning final to KUKI I saw a plane holding short of the runway. Did not think much about it as I was announcing my positions in the pattern. When I was on short final the plane suddenly pulled onto the runway without even a beep on the radio. Did the offset and go around while muttering some expletives and ended the flight with a great landing by my then applicable standards, i.e., walked away from it and the plane could be used again .   

[PeteMc]

2 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Offset and climb?  Or offset, climb and turn to downwind ASAP?  

Yes, offset to the Upwind side and get far enough away to see the other plane as you climb.  You don't want to to turn into the Downwind and be climbing up into any traffic you forgot was there or is in a NORDO aircraft.  You'd be coming up under their nose and/or wing where they'd never see you or expect another plane to be. 

Odds are, even in a relatively slow plane let alone a Mooney, at least while in the pattern, you're going to be faster than the departing traffic.  So it is unlikely you'd be able to turn Crosswind behind them.  So plan on heading out away from the Apt and then once you're up high enough, maybe reenter the DW on an Overhead entry.

[Pinecone]

1)  You can turn and climb at the same time, so pitch and roll to climb and offset.

2)  Since we sit on the left, you want to offset to the right to have the best visibility of the other aircraft.  If there are not other factors.

[Ibra]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

One of my questions in the current incident is why the Lancair didn't offset during the go-around.   

While ago someone asked me this question as example of "not much you can do about it" (single runway middle taxiway with slow traffic departing and fast traffic going around)

I pointed out that he can fly offset on go-around to "the pattern deadside", keep 1nm and visuzl then fly behind him on crosswind, he was puzzled, it did not seem obvious to him...

Edited Thursday at 01:39 PM by Ibra

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, EricJ said:

This is the accident C172.   The tail number is consistent with the Embry-Riddle fleet.   There is minimal apparent damage other than to the tips of the prop.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478774

Embry Riddle bought the plane new from Cessna in September 2015 and owned it until June 2023. ( hence the “ER” in the N number). It was then sold to an LLC. 

[1980Mooney]

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

This is the accident C172.   The tail number is consistent with the Embry-Riddle fleet.   There is minimal apparent damage other than to the tips of the prop.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478774

Here is the ASN link for the Cessna  N463ER.    The ASN link above is to the Lancair  360 MkII N3602M

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478760

FlightRadar24 lists AeroGuard Flight Training out of Chandler as the Operator

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n463er

[1980Mooney]

If you look at the ADSBExchange tracks it appears that the Lancair was doing low passes about 200-300 ft over the runway. Baro at the time was 30.12 so there is a 200 ft higher correction to the pressure altitudes.  Winds were 7-9 kts out of 110.  They were landing on Runway 12.

• On the first low pass, the Lancair was doing about 100 kts (groundspeed) on short Final and then  120-130 kts over the runway while remaining at about 200-300 ft AGL
• On the second (fatal) pass he slowed down to about 80 kts (groundspeed) on short Final but accelerated to about 100 kts while reaming 200-300 ft AGL over the runway.  
• However the 172  ahead in the pattern was only 55-60 kts (groundspeed) on short Final and then appears to have done a touch and go
  • During the last low pass, the Lancair was closing on the 172 at 20-25 kts on Final and then closing on the rolling/climbing 172 at about 35-45 kts while over Runway 12.
    • That is when the Lancair collided with the 172.

We don't know what was said on UNICOM (if the 172 announced intentions to do a T&G or to get off the runway) but clearly the faster Lancair overran the slower 172 ahead. 

"See and Avoid" didn't work.  We don't know if the Lancair saw the 172 on "Traffic" - it is possible that if he did, he may have thought the 172 was rolling down the runway to exit rather than take off and climb into him.

This makes a good case to not do low high speed passes over runways at uncontrolled airports.

• Side stepping would be safer as long as you are aware of the pattern in use at the time and what traffic is in the pattern.

Lancair

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a40ef6&lat=32.418&lon=-111.228&zoom=15.3&showTrace=2025-02-19&trackLabels&timestamp=1739978908

172

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a5a534&lat=32.418&lon=-111.228&zoom=16.9&showTrace=2025-02-19&trackLabels&timestamp=1739978867

 

Edited Thursday at 04:48 PM by 1980Mooney

[N201MKTurbo]

I sold my 56 172 to the dispatcher at Aero Guard. I should give him a call.

[PeteMc]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Since we sit on the left, you want to offset to the right to have the best visibility of the other aircraft.  If there are not other factors.

Rather than using "Right" (or Left), it might be better to refer to the Offset/Upwind as always the opposite side of the Runway from the Downwind.  This way people won't just remember "to the Right" and move to the Right and start climbing under a Right Downwind. 

[ragedracer1977]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

If you look at the ADSBExchange tracks it appears that the Lancair was doing low passes about 200-300 ft over the runway. Baro at the time was 30.12 so there is a 200 ft higher correction to the pressure altitudes.  Winds were 7-9 kts out of 110.  They were landing on Runway 12.

• On the first low pass, the Lancair was doing about 100 kts (groundspeed) on short Final and then  120-130 kts over the runway while remaining at about 200-300 ft AGL
• On the second (fatal) pass he slowed down to about 80 kts (groundspeed) on short Final but accelerated to about 100 kts while reaming 200-300 ft AGL over the runway.  
• However the 172  ahead in the pattern was only 55-60 kts (groundspeed) on short Final and then appears to have done a touch and go
  • During the last low pass, the Lancair was closing on the 172 at 20-25 kts on Final and then closing on the rolling/climbing 172 at about 35-45 kts while over Runway 12.
    • That is when the Lancair collided with the 172.

We don't know what was said on UNICOM (if the 172 announced intentions to do a T&G or to get off the runway) but clearly the faster Lancair overran the slower 172 ahead. 

"See and Avoid" didn't work.  We don't know if the Lancair saw the 172 on "Traffic" - it is possible that if he did, he may have thought the 172 was rolling down the runway to exit rather than take off and climb into him.

This makes a good case to not do low high speed passes over runways at uncontrolled airports.

• Side stepping would be safer as long as you are aware of the pattern in use at the time and what traffic is in the pattern.

Lancair

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a40ef6&lat=32.418&lon=-111.228&zoom=15.3&showTrace=2025-02-19&trackLabels&timestamp=1739978908

172

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a5a534&lat=32.418&lon=-111.228&zoom=16.9&showTrace=2025-02-19&trackLabels&timestamp=1739978867

 

According to a poster on a blancolirio video (he gives the tail number so you can verify yourself - on flight radar I think) the Lancair did the same thing to him on the first go around. Overflew him at 1-200’, maintained that altitude down the centerline and climbed well down the runway.

 Same guy also said he heard the Lancair guy on the radio say “going around. AGAIN”.

 Sounds like some poor decision making and exasperation killed his passenger - and fortunately no other innocents.

[PeteMc]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

If you look at the ADSBExchange tracks it appears that the Lancair was doing low passes about 200-300 ft over the runway.

Not that I'm fan of this guy (maybe it's his voice...).  But he does have the ADS-B timelines in sync in his video.  So even if you don't listen to his comments, it is a good track of what appears to have happened.  

https://youtu.be/tTq6bdRBrWk

 

[toto]

44 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

Not that I'm fan of this guy (maybe it's his voice...).

I like Juan Browne. I think he’s one of the good ones on YT 

[Mooney in Oz]

6 hours ago, toto said:

I like Juan Browne. I think he’s one of the good ones on YT 

Juan and Hoover (Pilot Debrief), I always watch.

Recently, they both presented together for the first time. It was so good and I hope it wasn’t their last together.